Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of 4 Screening Methods for Detecting Fluoropyrimidine Toxicity Risk: Identification of the Most Effective, Cost-Efficient Method to Save Lives
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of 4 Screening Methods for Detecting Fluoropyrimidine Toxicity Risk: Identification of the Most Effective, Cost-Efficient Method to Save Lives
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of 4 Screening Methods for Detecting Fluoropyrimidine Toxicity Risk: Identification of the Most Effective, Cost-Efficient Method to Save Lives
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of 4 Screening Methods for Detecting Fluoropyrimidine Toxicity Risk: Identification of the Most Effective, Cost-Efficient Method to Save Lives
2020
Overview
Background:
Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) carry around 20% risk of G3-5 toxicity and 0.2-1% risk of death, due to dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency. Several screening approaches exist for predicting toxicity, however there is ongoing debate over which method is best. This study compares 4 screening approaches.
Method:
472 patients treated for colorectal, head-and-neck, breast, or pancreatic cancers, who had not been tested pre-treatment for FP toxicity risk, were screened using: DPYD genotyping (G); phenotyping via plasma Uracil (U); phenotyping via plasma-dihydrouracil/uracil ratio (UH2/U); and a Multi-Parametric Method (MPM) using genotype, phenotype, and epigenetic data. Performance was compared, particularly the inability to detect at-risk patients (false negatives).
Results:
False negative rates for detecting G5 toxicity risk were 51.2%, 19.5%, 9.8% and 2.4%, for G, U, UH2/U and MPM, respectively. False negative rates for detecting G4-5 toxicity risk were 59.8%, 36.1%, 21.3% and 4.7%, respectively. MPM demonstrated significantly (p < 0.001) better prediction performance.
Conclusion:
MPM is the most effective method for limiting G4-5 toxicity. Its systematic implementation is cost-effective and significantly improves the risk-benefit ratio of FP-treatment. The use of MPM, rather than G or U testing, would avoid nearly 8,000 FP-related deaths per year globally (500 in France), and spare hundreds of thousands from G4 toxicity.
Publisher
SAGE Publications,SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC,SAGE Publishing
Subject
